Uttarakhand High Court Directs Release of Seized Mining Vehicles in Bageshwar
The Uttarakhand High Court has issued a directive to the competent authority in Bageshwar district to release heavy vehicles that were seized for alleged involvement in mining activities. The court observed that the seizures lacked legal support under specific mining laws, rendering them prima facie invalid.
Petition and Legal Arguments
A single bench of Justice Alok Mahara heard the petition filed by vehicle owners Deep Joshi and others on Monday. The petitioners argued that neither the concerned officer nor the district magistrate had filed any formal complaint against them regarding the illegal transportation of minor minerals under the Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 2023, or the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
The High Court noted that the failure to comply with Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates the production of seized property before a magistrate, and Section 23 BNSS, concerning proper custody and disposal, further vitiated the seizure process. Consequently, the court set aside the orders of the lower courts, which had previously rejected pleas for the release of the vehicles.
Background of the Case
The case originated on March 17 last year when an FIR was registered at Kapkot police station in Bageshwar under sections of the BNSS and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Following an investigation, 48 vehicles were seized in March and April. The applicants filed applications seeking the release of these vehicles, but their requests were denied by the chief judicial magistrate and sessions judge in Bageshwar on April 28 and July 25, respectively.
The petitioners contended that the vehicles were seized without any prior complaint and highlighted that the mandatory requirement of presenting the seized vehicles before the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 106 BNSS was not followed, thereby violating Section 23 BNSS. They emphasized their complete dependence on these vehicles for their livelihoods, having taken bank loans to purchase them.
Additionally, the petitioners pointed out that the vehicles were illegally kept in the open near the police station for almost a year, leading to rust and deterioration. Counsel for the petitioners cited the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat, which observed that keeping seized vehicles at police stations for extended periods serves no purpose and only causes them to deteriorate or lose value.
State's Counterarguments
The state's counsel argued that a division bench of the High Court had ordered the halt of all mining operations in Bageshwar district on January 6 last year. Despite this order, Ishtdev Stone Crusher in Golna, Kapkot, continued mining operations using forged e-Ravanas portals to transport minor minerals. Based on a complaint filed on March 17, 48 vehicles were seized after they were found to be involved in the illegal transportation of minor minerals.
Court's Findings and Directive
After reviewing the records, the High Court found that no separate FIR was registered targeting the seized vehicles, nor was any complaint filed with the competent authority. The court stated that such seizures lacked legal support under specific mining laws, making them prima facie invalid. It also observed that the principles established in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case were fully applicable.
The court directed the competent authority to release the vehicles after the owners provided an undertaking that they would produce the vehicles whenever required during the investigation and would fully cooperate with the authorities. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and protecting the rights of vehicle owners in such cases.
